breaking news: more bible translation errors discovered

Meat, substance, power, authority, these are all masculine things, and indeed, the very same things one struggles so hard to find within the church. As Podles so aptly said, to reject the masculine is to render The Church Impotent. (Insanitybytes)

As I exclusively revealed some time back in my first translation errors post, all English versions of the Bible have been mistranslated. This accounts for some Christians around the world getting conflicting advice from the Bible and from private discussions with the god God in their own heads.

Insanitybytes, above, is one such Christian who is smart enough to ignore the bits of the Bible that don’t conform to her personal sense of what is right and best. But thanks to this ongoing work correcting old versions of the Bible, we can finally understand from a biblical point of view what she means in the above comment.

Let’s look at the original beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3-10):

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Now, let’s look at the corrected version:

Blessed are those with authority, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the powerful, for they will inherit the earth
Blessed are the men, for they are more likely to have the masculine traits that God craves
Blessed are churches of meat and substance, for they will be filled
Blessed are the wall builders who turn their backs on the needy in case a terrorist slips through the net, for they will be called the children of God
Blessed are those who are persecuted (unless they come from another country or don’t conform to gender stereotypes), for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Now we can understand now why the Christian god God would hate to have a church that was feminised! I mean, yuck. In terms of shallow stereotypical gender descriptions, what exactly would that mean? Nurturing, caring, humble, welcoming, inclusive, merciful, loving. Sort of like that horrible mistranslation in the first erroneous Service on the Mount.

I hate to break it to you and the Protestants, but the Bible is a Catholic tome created by the Catholic Church, for Catholic Christians.

Martin Luther through no other power than what he granted to himself, redefined the Bible and Christianity.

Saint Paul explicitly warned the various churches about people like Martin Luther since such people have appeared out of the woodwork since Jesus, himself was alive.

Because of Martin Luther, we now have the even more ridiculous situation of postmodern atheists preaching the meaning of Bible scripture as if they had any idea whatsoever of what they are talking about.

Did you? So the pope, all the bishops, the priests being men, being in charge and making all the decisions doesn’t stop women from the running the show? What a curious outlook. I need to readjust my ‘real world’ specs.

I do not hate to break it to you Silenceofmind, or anybody else at all, be they Catholic, Protestant, Kopti, Hussite, Cathar, or Aryan for that matter, nor the vast majority of us on this planet not belonging, nor ever having belonged to any of those particular religious affiliations, but the New Testament (a small addition at the back of the book) is a tome created by the Catholic Orthodox Church for the Orthodox Christians – originally. Today also referred to as the Greek Catholic Church, if you wish to monopolize around a number of cults that called themselves Christian some 300 years after the alledged Jesus character had supposedly died and resurrected, with not a single eye wittness to this rather extravacant claim. The Bible – on the other hand – was orginally created by some Jews for other Jews, and nobody else.

Anyway, for once we do agree, a book was created by some ritual experts for the believers. No, gods were needed, nor involved at any point, as far as can be determined in any even remotely reliable way.

Oh, by “The Bible” you refer to that particular Catholic Bible. Of course that one particular Bible was written by priests for the Catholics on comission from the Roman bishop. It was a poor translation from Greek, now was it not? An attempt to make the Greek scriptures more understandable for the Latin speaking laymen and priests who did not understand Greek. Not unlike the protestant effort, to make the Bible understandable for non-Latin speaking laymen and priests who did not speak good Latin. Right? It did not even have a direct translation from the Hebrew Torah for the bigger part of the book. Clearly a work of primitive society, and in that respect not much different from the original texts. So, it was just a later version of an already existing text. Was it not? Was it not the Bible before that? What was it for all those generations? The Not-Bible? The Scriptures?

But in wich language was the Septuaginta written? Hmm? Wich language was the pamphlet at the back of the book – the New Testament – written? Greek, perhaps? Why did the great Schism occur? Because Latin translations of the Greek text were poor quality? Because the Latin priests had been adding their own ideas to the book and the Creed? Or that was the theological problem. Was it not? The real problem of course was totally secular and political in nature – about wich MAN should RULE over the church and believers. However, as a reslut the Papal Roman Catholic Church broke away from the one true Orthodox Chruch when they refused to remove the word “filique”, they had on their own accord added to the Nicene Creed, that had been founded in the First Council of Nicea 325 AD. Right?

If the Roman Catholic Christians see it as their right to claim they have the original Bible, because nobody had come to call the texts from wich they compiled their own canon of holy texts into a Bible, then the Orthodox Christians have an equal right to claim, that theirs is the orginal Creed and that their church is the original Catholic Church, from wich the Roman Catholics broke away, not unlike the Protestants later broke away from Roman Catholics. Correct? Do either of them have such a right?

The underlying problem, it seems, is this god character, appearing in various Bibles and in the Torah, who alledgedly has used this series of books, as the main communication method with humanity, is a total nincompoop in issues of communication, or more likely is the product of generations of superstitious and ignorant men living in a rather primitive societies. Wich is more likely and why?

Now the real question arises, wich is – as we have already agreed, that no divinities were involved in the writing process, why should anybody care what the Bible comissioned by pope Damasus around 382 AD (some three and a half centuries after the alledged mythical events, among wich the resurrection – the main evidence for the divinity of a carpenter, was not even seen by, well frankly, anybody at all) or any of the other versions of the book says? Why should we care about anything any of these books called the Bible tell us, let alone the position of varying gender roles within any given society, unless we are talking about Rome at that particular historical interval, and even in that regard more as a historical research info, than any sort of divine prescription on human behaviour?

Yes, yes, like I already agreed, the Roman Catholic Bible is a Roman Catholic tome. However, the word Bible comes from greek and it simply means scriptures. So, these scriptures did existed before the Catholic Vulgate Bible and – funny that – were already called the Bible. Simply translating the already existing compilation of stories does not make the translated version the original one. Does it? The scriptures (the Bible) do predate the political institution known as the Catholic Chruch, well most of them do. Hence, the Roman Catholic Church can hardly proclaim any ownership, nor copyright. Can they?

The original one Orthodox Church (based on GREEK scripture = Bible) had five pathriarchs, one in Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and in Rome, untill the one in Rome broke away from that club in the great Schism and founded the Roman Catholic sect. In that sense the Roman Catholic Church can barely claim authorship over even the Vulgata Bible as it predates the political institution of the Roman Catholic Church as such. In fact the Roman Catholic Church only managed to affirm it as it’s official Latin Bible as late as mid 16th century…

Actually, Silenceofmind, that Harry Potter analogy is demonstrating my argument. The Catholic Chruch rewrote the Bible and renamed it after the Greek word for scripture and now you would name these fanboys as the original storytellers. How you could possibly even try to turn the story around and pretend my argument was the opposite, is just plain damn weird.

I hope we can now agree, however, that the Bible is a fictional and innaccurate compilation of previous stories compiled in the 4th century when an official state union between the Roman Empire and the Christian Church was conducted and the latter needed some coherency and a tool to excuse the fact that the actual teachings about the end of the world and human kindness of the alledged unemployed carpenter demigod, did not really fit in a bureacratic system of political and economical power.

What we seem to disagree on is wether it is justified to make the claim, that it was the orginal story, or that it was actually the Roman Catholic Church that actually commissioned it, as such a political entity had not yet even emerged, since as we both agree, the great schism happened only several hundred years later. Altough, in all fairness, it was a long process in wich the Roman Catholic Church broke off from the Imperial state church, wich then continued as the Greek Catholic Church. Both used the Vulgata, before and after this disunion. The Greek Orthodox Catholic Church used the Greek Vulgata, and the Roman Catholic Church used the Latin translation of the very same Greek scriptures of the New Testament and possibly of the Old Testament from the Greek Septuaginta, though there seems to be alternative claims about the latter source.

None of this makes any of the points Violetwisp has made any less valid. Has it? You claiming that the authorship of the book and it being directed by the Roman Catholics only to Roman Catholic readers renders it difficult, or possibly impossible for Protestants and atheists to understand is either false, or true. You do not present anything to validate your claim, but if we were to consider it was true, for a moment, what would that suggest? That the god character in the book is a total moron as it comes to communication, or has prechosen Roman Catholics to be his special people, he is going to save from eternal torment, damnation, or at very least of total oblivion. That sort of god, who chooses random people according to accident of birth, to be able to understand the message supposedly meant for all of mankind, is either a nincompoop, or utterly immoral. So, wich is it?

Or could it be a lot more likelier, that there a) is no god, and it is just a fairytale product of fiction, like all them other gods, or that if there indeed exists a god, it has nothing to do with this ridiculous and morally corrupt plan to save humanity from death?

Are there words of wisdom in the Bible, sure, but not really enough to justify it as a work of divine know-it-all, who alledgedly is also benevolent towards humanity. I mean, seriously?

Silenceofmind, I am sorry to bring this up, but the Roman Catholic Church has been hiding child molestation all over the planet by it’s priesthood. Has it not? I suppose that is not what you are referring to, when you claim the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to hide. I would say that is a pretty big issue to be hiding, even if it is beside the point and I simply can not agree to “nothing to hide” as far this is a fact. That alone makes it a despicable criminal organization. You do understand that this is a fact?

As for the “scrupulous adherence” to translations from the mother tongues, I assume you refer to GREEK and Hebrew. That is the original languages of the Bible? Right? So, the Latin Vulgata is not the original version of the Bible, if it was first written in other languages and needed to be translated to Latin. Is it?

Who else exept the Roman Catholics would be impressed by the fact, that the Roman Catholic Church has given itself certifications for translations it has made of the book from the original GREEK and Hebrew texts? Why should even they be impressed by this?

If I agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church has been scrupulous in it’s translations, of the original GREEK scripture (=bible in Greek, remember), then you have to consede to the fact, that the Latin Vulgata was not really the first nor the original Bible – right? If they did not rewrite the damn book, then they were merely being scrupulous in copying the ORIGINAL book. Wich is it? Make up your mind.

None of this changes the fact, that the scriptures were originally in GREEK, or that the Imperial State Church was originally set in eastern Mediterranean where Geek was the common language as a result of Hellenistic period and that the Roman Catholic Church is a sect that branched from that unity in the great Schism as a result of the Roman Catholic priests adding their own fiction to the original Creed, as still practiced by the Orthodox Catholic Church? Does it?

Do you really think that? Why do you think the Roman Catholic Church did not do what you suggest? Why did they not hand these criminals to the law enforcement organizations? Why did they act like a criminal organization? Why was their public image more important to them, than the lives, these criminals ruined? Were they not at all concerned what their god would think about such an attempt to hide the hideous crimes? What do you think?

I think, these priests should have been condemned according to the laws of the countries where they committed the crimes just like any other criminals and not hidden inside the religious organization against the law. Personally, I think that they should get psychiatric treatment to live with their condition and that they surely should have been removed from the positions of authority where they could continue their crimes. I think the Roman Catholic Chruch has failed both the pedophiles, but especially their victims.

I am not at all for revealing pedophiles to the public. What would that achieve? Public stonings like in the Bible? Would that be moral? On what standards? Why were public stonings a recommended way of lawenforcement in the first place, when we clearly see such as barbaric today? Do we not? Altough in the Bible among all the listed wrongs pedophilia is not even mentioned, is it? How could an all-knowing and alledgedly benevolent god forget such a hideous crime from the list of not-to-do he supposedly gave to mankind. I mean the list includes forbidding tattoos, forbidding consenting sex between two adults, how many tassels your cloack should have and forbidding eating shelfish, why does it not include pedophilia? Is the god a total nincompoop in communicating what it wants to humanity, or is pedophilia infact a OK in the book of this god God? Or is it more likely, that the list as the rest of the book is just fiction from ignorant superstitious primitives, whose moral standards were not very objective at all, rather quite tribal and moralistic? What do you think?

Do you concede to my view, that the Bible was infact not originally a Roman Catholic tome, or do you think the entire Bible was created for political purposes in the 4th century long before the Roman Catholic Church as a political entity had even branched off from the Imperial State Church Christianity? Or what?

Violet,what I found so revealing about your post is how negative and biased it is against the masculine. As if men don’t feed the poor? Can’t love? Are not merciful?Don’t mourn?

It’s like you’re saying men are filthy in spirit, unmerciful, inpure in heart, and incapable of hungering for righteousness. So in your mind you have already set up a moral superiority, a hierarchy that declares the masculine to be unworthy, spiritually inferior, sinful really. If he wishes to be like Christ, he must reject his very masculinity because you’ve determined that part of ourselves to be unholy, “bad.”

I’m so sorry you didn’t understand the post. I made reference to the ‘shallow stereotypical gender descriptions’ you favour. So more pertinent questions I didn’t get to would be: are you saying women can’t be powerful or have substance? Are you saying women can’t be in authority and be strong? These are your silly terms, I’m just running with them and questioning how on earth they relate to the teachings of Jesus. Does the Sermon on the Mount suggest to you that your god wants a ‘masculine’ church as you envisage it?

The hilarious part is you imply gender doesn’t play a role, then you imply it does! LOL 😀
-“As if men don’t feed the poor? Can’t love?”
-“a hierarchy that declares the masculine to be unworthy, spiritually inferior, sinful really”
You can’t have it both ways. The objective reality is gender isn’t causal in either case. Men and women are both capable of kindness, honesty, carelessness, disregard- or any number of positive and negative emotions. Tendencies are much more to do with culture than capability.
And why don’t you try being honest? You’re all for women “playing a complementary role” until a man tells you to shut up and be quiet- then you change the meaning of the *complementary role* to suit you. Cute!

I’m sorry to hear that. You’re welcome to join the conversation any time – I think it’s good to have open discussions with a variety of differing points of view. But I understand that I often struggle to maintain a neutral tone and Christians can feel threatened by the straightforward presentation of facts.

Yes, I imagine it is rather challenging for your head to process all the contrary viewpoints based on facts. But puzzles can be fun! I’m sure you can rise to the challenge like many others who join the conversations here do. 🙂

Violet, try doing that yourself – rise to the challenge of being a sincere, worthwhile human being. How old are you anyway? Believe me, life is too short to waste it playing around with people’s minds. And, AFTER you die – what then? I’ll tell you what. It will be a little too late.

Okay, I’m not sure what you think you’re reading here. How on earth am I playing with people’s minds? How does a person play with people’s minds on a blog?? I write the occasional satirical post, but it’s hardly sneaky game playing – quite straightforward.

I pretty much disagree with a lot of the discussions that go on here, but I happen to love Violets witty one liners and comebacks as well as several of the other people who post here. It is fun place to hang out IF you come here to learn what and how other people think who disagree with your world view and resist the temptation to try and change their world view.

I believe you’re confusing “headgames” for people simply presenting facts, fcats that you find tremendously awkward. I believe this is why American Christian conservatives have recently invented these so-called Alternative Facts… A pantomime world created to placate and please those who wish to be decieved.

You see, this is the kind of response from a Christian that really confuses me. You don’t like us or our understanding of life, that’s fine. But trying to ‘scare’ an atheist by being glad you think they will suffer eternally just isn’t something Jesus would have done … and doesn’t make sense.

Where did I say I believe in Jesus? I can read, and I know the story of the character Jesus (whether he was a historical figure or not) and am familiar with the words of the character Jesus. The whole point of this post is that the more tolerable parts of Christianity (for instance, the peaceful, inclusive, humble things attributed to Jesus) are often ignored by this subsection of Christianity, who seem to want violence, control and discrimination.

Conversations? You don’t converse, you twist, exaggerate, and refuse to even consider the other side or answer it’s points DIRECTLY. Yours is a foolish game that wastes everyone’s time. MIND GAMES, nothing more.

(I do think your earlier instinct to leave these conversations is probably most healthy for you – you clearly aren’t enjoying yourself and seem kind of angry. I’d suggest sticking to posts you agree with for easier blogging interaction. You are, of course, welcome to stay if you decide otherwise.)

Really? You found that complicated? Words and their interpretation change over time. The meaning of the word adultery, for example, has changed very much since Roman/Biblical times. So any sweeping modern pronouncement on abortion made as if it’s infallible is highly problematic.

Absolutely, and thank you for bringing them to the conversation. You should write more, instead of leaving tantalising yet obscure clues that befuddle the average read. Makes the point more clearly. Which one of them has the best history?

The one that best supports your point is precisely the definition of adultery. In biblical times a man having relations with a slave wasn’t considered adultery. So people like Colorstorm can’t really say it’s a matter of “interpretation”, we’re talking about foundational meaning.

Taking an enormous risk I know, in jumping in here to comment without reading the whole conversation. Just one point which perhaps doesn’t need clarification.

First: in which Biblical times? That’s a big slice of time in human history.

“In Biblical times” needs to be differentiated from “endorsed Biblically.

You are correct that many societies would not have counted that as adultery. But the people of the Bible should always have considered it so, as long as they were faithful to their own scripture. The people of God were distinct from the pagan cultures around them precisely because their ethic did not allow for such acts as you mention.

Fantastic! Is that how you define another human being? By their nationality, sexuality or political affiliation? Brilliant. It proves my point. You’re not really capable of recognizing or understanding ethics- so instead you resort to simplistic labels.
“The sick do not ask if the hand that smoothes their pillow is pure, nor the dying care if the lips that touch their brow have known the kiss of sin.”
You’re not moral, you’re not ethical- you’re a person who supported the death penalty for gays in Uganda and then lied about it. You’re not a punchline, you’re either not intelligent enough to understand the harm you’re casing or you’re an actively malicious and disgusting person.

You really don’t have to rewrite the Bible. It is not sexist. Still, it seem you have a sore spot there.

Galatians 3:28 New International Version (NIV)

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So is insanitybytes22 right? Is the church masculine in character? Well, heaven does not bother with sexes, apparently, but down here on a fallen Earth we do. Redemption is the kind of activity men generally lead. Character building is the sort of thing we find in boot camp. Character building can be quite rough, tough, and brutal. So it is that men need courage and the encouragement of a woman, and women need the comfort of a man when they see their children suffering.

Hebrews 12:4-8 New International Version (NIV)

4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,

“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,

6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”

7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

The church exists to bring God’s Word to the world, and Christians are the church. Therefore, we bring a message of salvation. Christians also bring a message of the discipline of a loving Father.

I see you enjoy the discipline angle, but that would be between the individual believer and the god. In terms of how Christians work with each other, the message is quite clear: forgiveness and humility. The examples of Jesus and his followers are clearly those of gentle people, healing, serving, showing mercy. This subsection of American Christians you belong to makes the New Testament unrecognisable. You can look forward to authority and discipline from your OT god in the afterlife if it makes you feel better, but the new covenant is something quite different. 🙂

Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:31-32)

Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. (Colossians 3:13)

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-3)

Do I “enjoy the discipline angle”? Yes and no. Suffering is the major complaint that I think we all have with God. None of us like to be disciplined. However, there is a reward for accepting and learning from discipline. In the end, there is less suffering for our self and those we love.

Am I humble or forgiving? Not as much I should be. It took me a long time to accept the fact that God is God, and I am not. I also have a hard time regarding others as better than myself. But that is the value of discipline. It helps us to overcome difficult obstacles.

What about my fellow Christians or whatever it is you mean by “this subsection of American Christians you belong to”? Well, a church is a hospital for sinners. Until we recognize our need for salvation, there is not much point in going to a Christian church. So regardless of whether your condemnation is correct, I must admit the subsection of American Christians I belong to consists of sinners. I just hope that because we have accepted Christ we are much better than we otherwise would be.

Is what you or I believe the Truth? No. None of us sees the complete Truth. Our first problem is that the Truth is far bigger than any of us. God is infinite. We are finite. The second problem is one of bias. Until we strive to see the Truth from God’s point-of-view, our bias blinds us to the Truth. We make everything we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and think all about our self, not Him.

Consider. What does it mean to be humble? When we are proud, we make it all about “me”. Yet creation is infinite; we don’t even know what we don’t know. Thus, humility begins by accepting the fact that God is God, and “I” am not God. If there is no God, humility is a meaningless concept. If there is no God, from whose point-of-view can we begin to see the Truth? If there is no God, there is no Truth. There is only a lonely, transient, meaningless “me”.

At Jesus’ command men and women devote their lives to spreading the Gospel, the Good News about Jesus, the Christ. He lived, died and rose from the dead. Because of Him we are forgiven. Reconciled with God. He saved us because His mercy and His grace from eternal damnation.

Yet you don’t see authority and power in the Christian Church, the body of Christ? Of course you don’t. You still don’t believe in Jesus. Why should be impressed by something you don’t believe is real? When you do, then you will see the authority and the power of Jesus.

I feel like we’re having two different conversations here. My point is I don’t understand Insanity wishing to see a more authoritarian, power-hungry church (as she states in her post). It is at odds with what is written. Meekness, humility, guidance, service – that was the church that Jesus and the early Christians worked for.

It seems to me you have something confused. Masculine does not equate to authoritarian and power-hungry.

As I said earlier, when we try to make it about our self, we have this bias problem.

The Christian Church, as the Bible describes it, is something we join voluntarily to help spread the Gospel. All insanitybytes22 observed is the church requires a healthy dose of those attributes generally associated with masculinity. She spoke of masculinity as a positive attribute. You, apparently, do not see it that way.

Consider the meaning of the word “meek”. Meek does not equate to milquetoast. In the Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) two people are described as meek: Jesus and Moses. Moses led millions of people through some very hard times. Jesus started a movement that has lasted two thousand years. He inspires people to give their lives to the cause spreading the Gospel.

When He walked among us, Jesus, especially, demonstrated power under control. If it was in your power to swat your tormentors like flies, would you allow yourself to be crucified?

When a man cannot exercise control over his temper, the stronger he is the less good it is for him to have that strength. Hence, to be meek is a virtue.

“Masculine does not equate to authoritarian and power-hungry.” I don’t think it does either, it’s taken from Insanity’s post. I guess it’s an issue of semantics: when I read someone saying they want the church to be more ‘masculine’ and they specifically clarify this is in terms of authority and power, it sounds quite controlling to me. When I read in the Bible what Jesus wanted for his followers or instructions to the early church about serving and ‘not lording it’ over others, I find Insanity’s wish for authority and power in the church to be contrary to the Bible. You all seem to find different meaning in all these words, although no-one has stayed on topic sufficiently to explain how that’s possible. Dancing around the core theme, ignoring what Insanity wrote and going off on tangents seems to be the trend. 🙂

The Bible says Jesus spoke with authority. He performed miracles. He had power over the wind and the sea. Still, He left us the right to make our own choices. Do we love God and our neighbor, or do we not? We each must choose.

Christians can speak with authority. I can say Jesus loves me. The Bible tells me so.

Christians can love with power. Even when he hates me, I can still love my neighbor. Even when my neighbor thinks I am crazy, I know God approves.

I’m always surprised at how poorly so many religious disciplinarians who implement corporal punishment and justify under this banner confuse the root of the term ‘disciple’ to be ‘punish’ when it is they who should be most familiar with the term in its proper sense.

The term means ‘to teach’. Duh.

If punishment were the most effective form of teaching, then we should be willing to accept, say, flogging from a boss to help us increase our productivity (because it supposedly works, right?), from a police officers to improve lour driving skills (because nothing correct driving mistake like pain, right?), from a neighbour to improve our property value (an excellent reminded to cut the grass and weed and keep the house well maintained, right?). That’s why we’re all so accepting of a good bit of beating from other adults… because we learn so much and understand they’re doing us quite the favour!

Unfortunately for proponents of punishment in the name of discipline, punishment is well studied to reveal it as the least effective method to teach anything other than avoidance.

Those who use punishment – and corporal punishment the very worst teaching method – and claim to be instilling discipline are demonstrating their dedication to either ignorance in the information age or are simply lying about their own desire to feel powerful by inflicting harm on others. Rest assured, such people have no real motivation to teach anything to do with the rationalizations used to justify punishment. But we do know it has nothing to do with teaching self-discipline.

I think it rather obvious you started with a conclusion, and then you tried to justify your conclusion. That’s rather undisciplined.

When I was growing up, I was a military brat. So I went to schools in quite a few different places and had the opportunity to learn from a relatively wide variety of teachers. One thing I observed is the value of a quiet and orderly classroom. If a teacher cannot get his or her students to focus on learning the subject at hand, it does not make any difference how well the teacher knows the subject, it does not make any difference whether the textbook is good or bad, and it does not make any difference whether the building is A+. If the students are rowdy or indifferent to instruction, they will not learn.

Sometimes the only way to get a child to focus is with punishment. You don’t like it. I don’t like it. So?

Learning should be fun! When my daughters misbehaved, my wife actually threatened to keep them home from school, and it worked! Since I don’t think that would have been my reaction at their age, I chuckled.

My lady had taught our girls that learning could be fun. How? She had taught them there was a reward for sitting still and paying attention. Being still is the first step to knowing. Being still is the first discipline we must learn in order to learn more.

Psalm 46:10 New King James Version (NKJV)

Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!

Yes, my children wanted to be with their friends, but they were also good students. They wanted to learn.

Well, CT, I have no doubt you believe punishment is required as a legitimate response to unruly classrooms. That’s your experience. It is, sadly, all too common. My point is that knowing ahead of time that punishment is the worst possible tool to achieve effective teaching, it might be advantageous to think about why this response is needed to begin with. Here’s the thing: if you anticipate and pro-act effectively, you don’t need this kind of punitive response at all. I happen to think this is far more preferable than having to later try to justify the intentional harming of kids in the name of discipline.

I never punished anyone in my classrooms (I’ve taught from kindergarten to adult education but was used primarily for special ed and resource rooms – involving students at both ends of the learning spectrum). Not once. Ever. In fact, I never sent a kid to the principle or kicked anyone out of the room. Ever. I never had any behavioural problems in any of my classrooms that required a punitive response. Ever.

I had the highest attendance rates. I had the highest achievement rates. I had the highest remedial results. This is not an accident.

I did have very significant problems from other teachers, however, who couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that a disruptive classroom they experienced all the time was actually their failure – and not the kids’ – to manage their classrooms properly. (I even got in trouble from other teachers and administration for having too much laughter emanate from my closed door room.) Sure, lots of kids got punished and lots of kids misbehaved in other classrooms. So why didn’t they do so in my classrooms?

The answer is that I never allowed the kids in my classrooms any reason to WANT to misbehave. That took planning, foresight, and an ability to manage the environment before I had to respond like other teachers.

The same is true in parenting. Having a plan, using knowledge and foresight, self-examining results, finding better methods to achieve goals important for the child, understanding the emotional basis of child behaviour and helping him or her to find solutions to their problems, to grow and mature and develop strengths and recognize weaknesses all play an essential role in developing children into happy, healthy, mature, capable, responsible, well adjusted, compassionate, and caring adults. In other words, good citizens anyone would want as a neighbour, an employer or employee, a team mate or leader, a friend or spouse, a parent.

My attitude is that life is hard enough and adding punishments from those who say they love you while dealing you retribution is hardly a way to achieve these goals. Punishment interferes with their attainment so why use the wrong tool at all, and why try to defend using the worst tool for the job if you don’t have to?

As a parent, I can pretty much guarantee that intentionally harming your kids to suit your own need for retribution is almost always cause for regret after the fact. That’s a clue. I also think a lot of parents if given the choice to alter this action to one that promotes the intentions the parent had to correct behaviour in the first place, would. That’s an even stronger clue. Learning what these are and how to implement them ahead of time to create a loving and safe home where kids learn how to become great adults – especially by example – is hard work and requires a desire to be a really good parent. And most people see this only in the rear view mirror. I’m saying see it ahead and do the work necessary to make the journey just that much better for everyone including parents.

If you have a system that works for you, I see little point in debating the matter. I am not obsessed with making other people do things my way, and I have no control over how you teach.

Anyway, my guess is that you do have a way of punishing students. You just don’t define it as punishment. It is just logical to suppose that what I have experienced from you in writing your students have experienced verbally.

Words can bite every bit as deep as the lash of a whip.

Hopefully, you love teaching and what you teach enough to inspire your students. Hopefully, you spend very little time giving tongue lashings, but that’s not what I have seen from you on the Internet.

Hopped over to IB’s after reading this. Can’t seem to make out where you’re finding the attitudes and convictions you say you’ve found there. I wonder if you could connect the dots or are we supposed to fill in the massive chasms you’ve skipped over with warmed-over trope shorthand? Of course you’ve passed over the meat and substance of her post and found the one passage you can read the way you’d like. Ah well. I know I’ll be sorry.

I refer to your quote above: “The examples of Jesus and his followers are clearly those of gentle people, healing, serving, showing mercy. This subsection of American Christians you belong to makes the New Testament unrecognisable. ”

Based on what?

Neither in IB’s post, nor in reality, do we really find that caricature. Please substantiate the charge before you use it as a premise. Or have you spent lots of time in American churches and cultivated lots of long-term relationships face-to-face with American Christians?

Based on what? Seriously? I have quoted directly from IBs post and Citizen Tom has popped over to emphasise that the Christian message is one of disciplining the sinner. I can’t think for the life of me what you’re taking issue with here. It’s not a caricature – it’s staring you on the page here from the mouths of the authors. If you disagree with them, please feel free to strike up a conversation with them.

I answered violetwisp’s criticism. It seems that violetwisp either does not take seriously the notion that God considers us His children or that she disapproves of punishing children when they do wrong. Perhaps she simply fails to consider how much God flatters us by calling us His children. Even if a scientist could manufacture an amoeba in a laboratory, would he call it his child?

Just the same, it is God who I said disciplines us. It is the same God in the Old and New Testaments, one who hates sin. Jesus died on a cross because the penalty for sin is death.

The church merely spreads the Gospel of Jesus. Church people can point to a wrong. Church people can cite the Bible. Church people cannot punish. Vengeance belongs to the Lord.

Invisible and inaudible. When His Creation is all about us. When each of us is made in His image. Yet you cannot see or hear Him. I wonder if you will get your wish. Neither you or I can see God and live. The Bible says as much.

Anyway since it is relevant to your question, here is part of a comment I left for violet.

Is what you or I believe the Truth? No. None of us sees the complete Truth. Our first problem is that the Truth is far bigger than any of us. God is infinite. We are finite. The second problem is one of bias. Until we strive to see the Truth from God’s point-of-view, our bias blinds us to the Truth. We make everything we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and think all about our self, not Him.

Consider. What does it mean to be humble? When we are proud, we make it all about “me”. Yet creation is infinite; we don’t even know what we don’t know. Thus, humility begins by accepting the fact that God is God, and “I” am not God. If there is no God, humility is a meaningless concept. If there is no God, from whose point-of-view can we begin to see the Truth? If there is no God, there is no Truth. There is only a lonely, transient, meaningless “me”.

All facts are Alternative Facts. The best we can do is make an honest effort to choose that set of “facts” that is most in accord with reality as our Creator knows it to be. That you say you have no interest in doing. Therefore, I have a question. How do you go about selecting your Alternative Facts?

The desire to force others to accept our “facts” causes some people worship majoritarian tyranny. When we are gullible enough to think the correct “facts” are all about being in the majority, we think we can rule — create our vision of Utopia — with the “facts”.

Does might make right? Mao Zedong understood might to make right. He perceived truth through the barrel of a gun. How saw truth as the one who controls which way the most guns are pointed. Those were his “facts”. Are yours that much different?

The Middle Eastern god of the Pentateuch (re-invented in the New Testament, then again revised in the Qur’an) is invisible and inaudible. It gives off no odour and has no perceptible taste. It generates no heat signature, produces no electromagnetic field and provokes no resonance at any frequency. It cannot be detected with any instrument and no measurement of any natural phenomena has ever indicated its presence. Its influence cannot be inferred from any secondary observation, no earthly geological record speaks of its intervention, and no examination of any biological or astronomical system has ever alluded to its agency. It is massless. It displaces neither liquids, solids, gas nor plasma and has no perceptible gravitational effect on anything. No disturbance in the fabric of spacetime suggests it’d once moved through any region of the cosmos, and the last remaining place where the god of the Pentateuch could possibly reside (undetected) is a place where the god of the Pentateuch cannot reside; beyond the last Schwarzschild radius of a black hole where events can no longer affect an outside observer.

Here are some more facts:

Temporally speaking, the god of the Pentateuch is entirely absent from all but the last 1.25% of human history, and even after its literary debut in the 6th Century BCE failed to register as anything other than a minor Middle Eastern artistic anomaly envisaged by no other culture on the planet. It didn’t materialise independently in mainland Europe, emerge unassisted on the British Isles, or rouse a single word across the entire Far East. It inspired no one in any of the 30,000 islands of the South Pacific, energised nothing across the African continent, stirred naught in North America, and didn’t move anything or anyone in Central or South America. No one across the vast Indian Great Plains or Russian steppes ever heard of it. No Azorean fisherman suddenly spoke of it, no Scandinavian shipwright carved its name in a stone, no Japanese mother ever thought she’d heard it speak in whispered tones, and no Australian aborigine ever dreamed of it.

Outside the pages of the bible there is positively nothing in the natural or anthropological landscape which might even remotely lead a person blissfully ignorant of the claims made in bible to suspect that that particular Middle Eastern god has ever inspired anything except the imaginations of a few linguistically specific Iron Age Canaanite hill tribes looking to add a little supernatural spice to their otherwise perfectly terrestrial lives.

Second, Atheist David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel. Was Ben-Gurion, the atheist, motivated by “I,” “I,” “I,” “I,” or “We,” “We,” “We,”?

I could, of course, go on and on and on and on, but there’s really no point. The person (the Christian conservative voter) who dabbles in “Alternative Facts” is not interested in actual facts, is he, CT?

You can’t even get your labels right. Why do you have to pick on Bill Gates and David Ben-Gurion and drag them into your militant atheist camp? This is why I don’t let you post on my site. You just make stuff up.

No, you banned me, CT, because I present “facts,” as per the defintion of the word, while you prefer pantomimes, lies, falsehoods, or as Christian conservatives like yourself have renamed them today, “Alternative Facts”

You see, you’ve demonstrated this penchant of yours again, right here. You don’t actually face the “facts” presented.

So, I believe I was waiting for you to demonstrate how any of my presented “facts” were somehow incorrect.

This widespread attitude is all the more surprising given that Israel’s most revered historical figures – from Zionist visionary Theodor Herzl to its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, to many of the framers of the Declaration of Independence – were declared atheists.

Bill Gates doesn’t know what to believe. That makes him an atheist like you?

What did David Ben-Gurion believe? Some cites some unnamed source and declares him an atheist, that makes him an atheist, an atheist like you? Just out of curiosity, I looked up a few sources, but you can do your own research.
😆

Am I just a pile of shit? God knows. Only God makes it possible to turn manure into fertilizer, make something useful out of a mountain of shit. All we can do is strive to be good stewarts of what He has given us. That requires us to love each other as He commanded.

David Ben-Gurion claimed to be a sort of pantheist and Bill Gates has at least hinted in the direction, that he thinks social morals comes from a god. Wether these two are even to be called good men, is more complicated and not even very interresting. If I had to name one selfless atheist in the world it would be my dad, but none of you knew him, so you would have to trust my word – the word of an atheist. Would you trust me?

On the other hand, I do not think anybody gets their morals or will to do good things from any gods, or even religions. To come to the conclusion, that a particular god caused the moral behaviour in men, we would have to prove this god existed first, and not conclude that a god must exist because men behave morally. We know humans behave morally, because as a social species it makes all of our lives that much easier, to abide to some common rules we agree between each others. But even if we did not know, that that is the actual source of morals, we would under no circumstances be warranted to pull a god from our arses as an explanation to any issue we do not know any better. This includes the universe, life, intelligence or really anything at all, for wich we may or may not know the reason for.

Religions as cultural phenomenons are not only adept at setting social moral rules, but also keen on claiming any functional social rules as something the gods they happen to represent originated. In the end they are all a functional but poor method of making social rules, as ultimately they depend on authoritarianism, of the ritual experts, who claim to know what these gods want and to interprete the will of the respective gods, wether by inner knowledge, a book, intestines of sacrificial animals, or even men, or by various other equally ridiculous methods. In this way religions as authors of social morals are no different from dictatorships, wether governed by atheistic, or by religious authoritarian dictators.

The Human condition between citizens in different states can be measured, by varying standards, and it very much seems, that the more secular a state is, the less likely the citizen is to fall prey to religious persecution and the more likely the weakest and the poorest people are socially supported by the society. Why is that?

Actual facts can be verified by the scientific method. It is the best and frankly the only even remotely reliable method we do have. Faith, as often put forward as a virtue by the religious, is an anathema to the scientific method and produces “alternative facts”, that are non-truths, wether if this faith is put to a god, a religion, or a secular, sometimes even atheistic leadership.

So, authoritarianism is the real problem of the humanity, and religions are a sort of added problem, because they invariably are based on it. It is tricky, because many authoritarianistic cultures (religions among them) indoctrinate people to this infantile state, where the individual does not grow up to be a full fledged adult, but clings on the sense of emotional safety, they had as a child, when they were dependant on the authority of an actual adult. Hence some gods are referred to as “father”, or such, and that was what Stalin used when he was called the “Father” of the nation.

Oh, now I see John. Well, as for David Ben-Gurion he was an atheist when he was politically active and only after his political career he discussed the possibility of a form of Pantheism. There is a long way from there to actual Theism.

It reminds me of this ridiculous fact, that a lot of Finnish Lutheran religious fanatics have this schitzofrenic relationship with Israel, as they recognize themselves as Zionists, and politically support every inhumane descision the fascistic conservative Israeli government makes to achieve the “final solution” with the Palestinians, yet they themselves are anguished by the fact, that Israel is one of the most atheistic countries on the planet, that they make more legal abortions per capita than any other nation, and that these Lutheran fanatics are totally oblivious to what their religious teacher Martin Luther said about the Jews, or what the most conservative Orthodox Jews think about such fan boys as they are.

As for Bill Gates, I am not really impressed. He has donated so much money, that he could have made a real change for better in the world, but to me it seems, that his donations have barely made a dent on the problems of the world. I suppose in charity it is the thought that counts, but as for the how the actual problems should be solved, I do not see charity as a very effective means to a goal. Any goal really, exept better self conscience for the charitable person. Oh, and I do donate to good causes myself, but I would like to think I am not so much buying myself a better feeling, as I am contributing in my limited capacity to change the world for the better for all of us out of sense of responsibility for others and future generations. When faced with his own mortality, a person must contribute to the future generations.

The thing is, I do not think there is morality involved, if a person is contributing to a good cause just out of self interrest, like buying a stairway to heaven, to serve the will of a more powerfull entity – be it the creator, or a dictator, or simply to feel good about themselves. Those are at best moralist motives. In my view, the adult person takes responsibility of their actions and realizes, that the best way to reach a fair and moral world is to act responsibly and to make the world a better place, not just for themselves, but for everyone and infact for the entire eco-system part of wich we are. It seems this is a tough piece to swallow for the religious types, because they are confused about the reality around them by all sorts of fairy tales, magic, gods, spirits and other superstitious nonsense.

So the temperature at which water boils is an alternative fact? How about body temperature for hypothermia? This appeal to confusion is an appeal to disregard verifiability. The religious have, for centuries, used this method to try to equate superstition and the scientific method- and yet when priests have cancer they still rely on chemo and radio therapies.

We have “facts,” and then we have Christian conservative “Alternative Facts,” or what rational people call lies.

Fact: Ben-Gurion was an atheist. Supporting evidence shown.

Alternative Fact: “No, Ben-Gurion was not an atheist because that contradicts my pantomime reality…. and no, I will not provide supporting evidence because none exists but I don’t give a shit because I live in a Post-Truth world.”

Raut was mistaken, which is unusual for him. I gave you a Jerusalem Post article. I also directed you to the wiki page, you idiot.

I guess you’ll also just hate to hear that not only was Ben-Gurian a self-proclaimed atheist, but so too was Israeli PM, Golda Meir.

Bill Gates

Bill Gates on Religion
Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don’t. I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in. There’s a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact.
Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you’d say you don’t know?
Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

So, CT, I’m still waiting for you to show how my facts are somehow incorrect…

I’m not clear what you’re arguing about here JZ. For a start, Raut is never wrong about anything. Next, a quick Google tells me Bill Gates is not an atheist or a Christian, but he does his utmost not to offend his Catholic wife or the Christian population of the USA as a whole, and makes religious-supporting statements quite frequently:
“The moral systems of religion, I think, are super important. We’ve raised our kids in a religious way; they’ve gone to the Catholic church that Melinda goes to and I participate in.”. In the article Tom points to, he says it makes sense to believe in God (note, not even gods). I can see why Tom is laughing at you, and there’s no point in trying to hammer it home and frame it as an Alternative Fact to think otherwise. Where’s your head man? It’s far from a black and white case where the ‘silly Christian’ is arguing blue.

Nonsense. If anything, he’s an agnostic atheist. Ben-Gurian was most certainly an atheist. And you’re right, I have no idea what we’re even talking about now. People who forward Alternative Facts do so to confuse conversations. If I remember correctly, CT was trying to state that atheists only believe in “I.” This, of course, is a pantomime, and I pointed it out to him. I think there was probably something before that which inspired me to reply to him, but what that was I can’t recall. See, his attempt to confuse a conversation has worked 😉

Just observe what Zande did here. When I refuted his argument, he just started cutting and pasting more “facts”. That included calling two people atheists when they are not. Whatever Gates believes and Ben-Gurion believed may be uncertain, but they did not call themselves atheists. An atheist is someone who does not believe God exists. An agnostic says he does not know whether God exists. Those are the dictionary definitions.

I would rather not have people posting stuff on my blog that the person posting knows is not true. Zande wants to score points that way, I am not interested.

Here is a thought for you to consider. Why did Zande call Gates and Ben-Gurion atheists? He thought he needed some famous people to hold up as fine and outstanding citizen who are atheists. He could not find the real thing? If I were an atheist, I think I would find myself embarrassed to be associated with that man.

This widespread attitude is all the more surprising given that Israel’s most revered historical figures – from Zionist visionary Theodor Herzl to its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, to many of the framers of the Declaration of Independence – were declared atheists.

“she disapproves of punishing children when they do wrong”
Absolutely! It’s all about setting good examples and providing reasons for behaving in a socialised manner that takes other people’s feelings into consideration. Children aren’t ‘bad’, they’re just clueless about social norms until they’re sufficiently exposed to them, and they have some very basic needs (food, rest, comfort) that people tend to overlook before they launch into counter-productive disciplining. And this is one of the reasons I can never accept the Christian god in the Bible – the caricature of this omniscient being punishing its puny creation is disgusting.

It was never was anything about what insanitybytes22 actually said. It was about your perception, what you believe. It was about the fact Christianity offends you. Its mere existence offends you.

I was that way once. The notion of God dying on a cross caused me to roll up my eyes. I could not understand the idea of original sin, that we are born with an affliction that only the love of God can cure. And the idea of a God with so much power…… What was little Tommy compared to Him?

I have watch children grow. Brothers. A sister. My own. They are not entirely clueless. They waste no time learning the word “mine”. We are born with an insatiable pride. ME FIRST!

Only love can quench a child’s pride, but first we must get a child’s attention. Without a bit a of mild punishment that’s next to impossible. With one child? Maybe. We can hold a child until it is willing to accept direction, if you have the time. With two or more? No way. Not even the most devoted stay at home mom or dad has that kind of time.

If you love your kids, the choice between letting them run wild and smacking them on the bottom quickly becomes obvious. At least it does for people who raise their own kids.

“If you love your kids, the choice between letting them run wild and smacking them on the bottom quickly becomes obvious. At least it does for people who raise their own kids.”
Choke! The thing that scares about this is that I know the only times I feel even the desire to be violent towards my children (or ‘smack’ them, as you say) is when I have lost control – I’m tired, irritable and can’t think of a more sensible way to handle the situation. But experience has taught me there is always a better way to handle the situation, and I feel sorry for children brought up by backward parents who can’t see their way out these violent control cycles. Kids have reasons for doing things, if you spend enough quality time with them, you usually can find out what’s behind any challenging behaviour. If you’re smart enough to distract them and patient enough to discuss things with them, you can find more sensible ways to resolve conflict. If you’re a control freak bent on blind obedience, usually violence is your only way to get co-operation from smaller humans. I can’t believe you’re proud of that.

We are works in progress. We each have to deal with our problems as we best know how.

Did I discipline my children as well as I should have? No. I have a temper, and the ability of my eldest when she was two to set it off scared me. So I would have been stupid to wait until I was furious. Did that once. Did not hurt the kid, but I was thoroughly ashamed that I was about to lose it. It is important to be meek.

Just the same, when my wife was home alone with two kids, she had to do something with the older child or she could not take care of the new-born. She finally conceded the necessity of punishment (spanking was not something she liked either). Mostly she just stuck the two-year old in the backyard (fenced) until the child agreed to behave. Even with a shaded patio deck, Houston, TX can be quite uncomfortable without air-conditioning. Watching that stubborn, wilful little girl cry hurt my lady more than it did my eldest. Still, it worked.

There are spankings, and then there are very disagreeable alternatives that are just as punishing. Frankly, I prefer what my wife did, but it takes more patience, and the weather has to cooperate.

Why was the oldest misbehaving? Part of the reason is that she had lost her status as the center of mommy’s attention. So mommy included her as much as she could in taking care of her sister. Still, two-year old children will act up, and sometimes the “reason” for their bad behavior is they just want to do something they know they are not suppose to do. Even a two-year old child can be a control freak, and that kid was smart. She is an MD now.

I agree it’s very difficult to cope with two young children at the same time. My daughter was three when her little brother was born, so she was at an age I could reason with her to a certain extent, but I still knocked her to the ground once to protect the baby when she kicked off and he was feeding. It’s not something I’m proud of though, or that I think was necessary. I wonder if I could have found a better way of dealing with her before we hit the flash point. It’s not about judging what we do to deal with a situation when we’re exhausted, busy and coping with more than one child, it’s about acknowledging that there are other ways of dealing with challenging behaviour that are definitely better for all involved. You weren’t happy about seeing your child crying her eyes out (and potentially suffering in the heat?) but you think it’s the best thing you could have done. It was the only thing you could think of at the time, but there would certainly have been better strategies available to avoid her getting to that point, such as simple distracted or giving enough positive attention earlier in the day.

My wife stuck my eldest in the backyard out of desperation. She did not know what else to do. As your own stories indicate, toddlers can be enormously wilful.

What is the object of raising a child? Because we love our children, I think most parents want to produce someone better than our self. May not happen, but that’s the goal.

Part of life is conflict. We make choices and choices have consequences. We don’t want to be unreasonable, but we do want to defend our interests. Children need to understand how the options work.

If we make some wrong choices we will go to jail. Children have to learn that. They have to learn mommy and daddy love them, but mommy and daddy cannot always “distract” them from their wants. The word “NO” is something they have to understand. They need to learn strategies for dealing with the next question: now what do I do? An alternative “discipline” strategy that does not teach that is foolish.

Do you want to pacify kids with drugs? I serious doubt that, but you have to admit it is a way hide the pain that comes with hard choices. Hence, we have too many schools in this country pacifying boys with pills.

Consider one last thought. How did you learn to discipline yourself? Was it not because someone disciplined you? Did they do a good job? Maybe yes. Maybe no. I don’t know your background. All I can say is that most children learn self-discipline from their parents, mostly their mothers.

When the Bible identifies the kings of Israel and Judah, it lists their mothers as well. Was he a good king or a bad king? Much of the credit goes to that king’s mother.

Violet, I can’t believe you actually mean that you don’t use some form of punishment with your own children. Perhaps you simply mean you don’t believe in corporal punishment, which I would believe and understand. But no punishment whatsoever?

I don’t think punishment is effective in the long-term. It’s effectively a short-term control measure by bullying. That’s not to say that I don’t occasionally sink to it when I’m tired, exasperated, and can’t think of anything else. 🙂 But I recognise the futility in it. I can’t yet speak to the long-term effectiveness personally, but Barry from Another Spectrum once told me that his parents explained why they expected certain kinds of behaviour and co-operation – using logic to parent. He did the same with his kids and thinks it’s worth the effort. I tend to agree with him based on my understanding of humans. I want my children to think about what they do, make their own decisions, and know why they are doing things. Blind obedience is useful in some respects but we all know we want more for our kids and for society in general

Having raised my kids all the way to adulthood, the one thing I can say about the process, is that kids DO need to know the why behind things AND they need to learn that every choice they makes has a corresponding consequence attached to it, for good or bad.. Sure, you can just tell them “Because I say so”, but that is the lazy approach. However, there are times when children need a negative reinforcement, like going to their room, or taking away a benefit of some kind so that they learn the real world rules that our actions DO have consequences.

Is disapproval from the parent (in the context of a loving family) not usually ‘punishment’ enough? Children crave approval. Sure, they push boundaries, but they want to please. I ask them to go to their room to think about their behaviour, but I try to make it an opportunity for us both to calm down rather than as a punishment.

You see, I would consider sending them to their room a form of correction / punishment / discipline. It is true that little children crave a parents approval, but teenagers? Not so much. I take it you have not gotten to that wonderful time yet. 🙂

Well, enjoy the ride. Most parents I know who have been through the whole process would say that their parenting style or methods “evolved” as their children grew. My advice to young parents is to find some older parents whose kids turned out well and ask them lots of questions!

Absolutely. Children go through so many different stages, and they are all individuals of course, so there can’t be one parenting style in detail that works for every child the whole way through. But I still think punishment, and any kind of punishment that involves physical suffering, has no place in society. I’ve found the post from Barry that really helped me think about things: “A little background: I was brought up in a family where punishment of any sort was virtually unknown, and then it was in the form of restitution or compensation. No matter what our trespass was, we were drawn into a conversation where we learnt why a particular action (or inaction) wasn’t appropriate. Often, this was in a series of questions where we were encouraged to work out for ourselves what it was we did wrong, and what better alternatives we could have taken.
This method of handling transgressions worked, even for one of my siblings who had a tendency to test my parents’ patience whenever he could. In contrast, some of my peers, might learn that something they did was “bad” due to the punishment they received, but might not understand why they were bad. They often had to construct elaborate rules of behaviour to keep on the right side of the parents. Some thought they were intrinsically bad, because that notion was repeatedly reinforced by being told they were bad children. The parallels with some forms of Biblical teachings should be obvious.”

Even Barry’s method utilizes some form of punishment, though kept to a minimum. Taking away a privilege, denying them the opportunity to drive the car for a week, or not go to the party because they came home at 3am instead of at curfew are all forms of discipline or training. Teaching our children that there are real consequences when they make poor choices is one of the hardest parts of being a loving parent, and I think we would both agree on that.

Question for parenting: what’s your goal? The answer to this question determines whether or not this tool or that one is the best one for the job.

The goal achieved by punishment – and this is borne out by longitudinal child psych research – is to teach children how to avoid the punishment. Not the behaviour being punished as parents assume but being caught. This is what is being taught by parents who use punishment. Is this really the goal parents seek to reach with their kids, how to avoid taking responsibility?

Punishment is and should be at the bottom of the tool box for this reason and used only when the parent must take control of the child’s behaviour for the child’s immediate safety.

And just to clarify, negative reinforcement is not equivalent to punishment; it’s a very common technique to get us to do something in order to get rid of something.. like the sound made when a seat belt is left undone. To get rid of the unpleasant (negative) sound means doing something (reinforcing) like attaching the belt. or the car door making an unpleasant sound when left open to get you to shut it and remove the negative sound incursion. That’s not what punishment does because both the cause and release of the punishment is one step removed from the child; it’s not the activity the child committed being punished but the child, and the object doing the correcting is not the child’s behaviour but the parent doing the punishing. Parents assume by claiming otherwise are, in fact, lying to the child and the child knows this. Punishment increases distrust by the child of the parent doing it while promoting avoidance of the parent causing it. The connection the child is supposed to make to the previous behaviour and the parent’s surrogate role to correct it is indeed so faint as to be felt as a lie, a betrayal.

May I summon my polite voice and merely suggest that you are out to lunch thinking that your ‘translation errors’ are identical to ‘misinterpretation,’ which you have artfully achieved.

Nice work, taking the very words of a very good man, and forcing meanings never intended. But your ‘breaking news,’ is actually no news at all, for people have been doing the very thing for ages, which proof lies in the commentary by they who come running to your aid.

One would think your hands would be bloody from mishandling such sharp objects as that two-edged razor like word, yes, that book which proves itself correct every time and every way.

Even the wrath of man in his foolishness proves that God and His word are true. I repeat though for emphasis, there is no issue with ‘translation,’ but the issue is with your interpretation, which understanding is impossible if you do not even give God the courtesy of existing.

I see what you mean ColorStorm. So how would you reconcile Insanity’s wish for an authoritarian church that wields its power, with the vision of Christian living presented by Jesus and his followers in the New Testament? Perhaps giving your god the courtesy of existing you’ll have more insight.

So all those bits about the meek, peaceful, poor people being blessed by the god God are wrong? All those bits about ‘not lording it over’ people are wrong? I think you’re confusing the authority that your god God claims to have, with the kind of behaviour expected by the mere humans setting up his places of worship. Can you even see the difference?

I see that many of your are compassionate within certain boundaries. But you also show vitriol to women who choose not to continue with unwanted pregnancies (talking about murder and genocide), say awful things about people seeking asylum in your country, immigrants, and also sometime atheists in general. For example, someone on this post told John to enjoy hell and Satan hates him. Apart for the ridiculous nature of the comment, it reveals hatred from someone who believes these things exist.

My concern would be church that was based around authority and power – telling people what to do, rather than leading by example, and discussing different possible interpretations of the Bible.

Sorry ColorStorm, I didn’t realise you’re a Native American. It must be difficult for you to see that your traditional culture has been torn apart over the centuries. Unfortunately, I think we just have to move with the times – take what’s good from all different cultures, while preserving what we love about our own. Remember that your Chinese immigrant of today is the European immigrant of yesterday, and beyond that even the indigenous Americans moved around territories. No one culture truly owns any piece of land – I would have thought a Christian would accept that more than anyone else! If your god sees no Jew or Greek, why on earth would a Christian be hung up on such superficialities?

I would be genuinely interested if you would. Perhaps you could do a post and give me the link? It’s not an idea I know much about. I know people from the USA can tend to be arrogant about wealth and military capabilities, but I didn’t know anyone believed it was ‘special’ in a religious way. Is that not Israel you’re thinking of? Or Italy?

You seem to want the church to express its goodness by putting itself at the service of progressive politics. The fact that in the US for the past couple of decades Christians have been throwing their lot in with the right exacerbates your feelings.
The problem is that there is no one Christian approach to politics, nor should there be, except to refuse to actively commit evil.
Now whether or not individual Christians are assholes about politics is a different matter, but lots of people are assholes about politics, it is the age we live in. I’ve known a few smug jerks who call themselves Christian Progressives (yeah, I know, takes one to know one, etc, I’ll just cut you off right there).

I want the Christian church (while it continues to exist) to follow the teachings of Jesus. It offends my former religious self when I read people wanting the church to be an authoritarian organisation that supports murdering homosexuals (see Insanity’s post supporting the Ugandan anti-homosexual bill) or wants to turn desperate refugees back from its borders, allowing thousands of families with young children to suffer in excruciating circumstances for fear a few terrorists slip through the net (see your posts and many others) or Christians who think Jesus would like racial homogeneity with strict borders (see ColorStorm’s comment above). Like I said the other post, tiny minds stuck in tiny places – no concept of the world, and no breadth of spirit or understanding to see the real good shining through in some of the reported words of Jesus.

A cross-section of people who may or may not be representative of a religion to which you do not belong hold to political opinions which may or may not be reflective of the reputed words of said religion’s reputed founder.
What is the point of arguing?

What’s the point of reading something I vehemently disagree with, something I’m sure makes human society a less pleasant place to live, and leaving it unchallenged? It’s clear many of these people haven’t even thought things through, but just accept their cultural norm. I’m an educator of sorts. 🙂 (no success stories to date …)